On April 23, 2010 Liberty University announced that Glenn Beck would deliver the Commencement speech for Liberty University’s Class of 2010. The graduation took place on Saturday, May 15. Beck’s speech can be viewed online at The Rightscoop.
Success came early for Beck when just before his speech, Liberty conferred an honorary Doctorate of Humanities degree upon him. Beck then went on to speak to the more than 4,000 students present.
The result of the Commencement speech?
Best commencement we’ve ever had.
Said Jerry Falwell, Jr., Chancellor of Liberty University. It seems Beck and the Liberty officials were happy. It seems the graduating students were also pleased judging by the their reactions during the speech. Given Beck’s political leanings and entertainment value this is understandable. However, it wasn’t all smiles for everyone.
Some concerned Christians spoke up. A most interesting passing reply to these concerned Christians came from a Liberty official. On, April 23, the same day of the announcement, Ergun Caner, President of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary responded via twitter.
Glenn Beck at the LU Graduation! Love it! And I’m loving the snarking of the haters. LU folk: rejoice when they revile!
Given the nature of the concern for Beck speaking at Liberty this reply does not make a lot of sense. Caner may have been referring to Matthew 5:11 or another part of Scripture. This would be even more troubling since Christians are to rejoice when persecuted for Christ’s sake. Given that Beck is a Mormon it should be difficult for any Christian to rejoice in such manner.
One example of concern comes from a Florida pastor who was part of this graduating class. He shared his feelings at – Point of View: Why Glenn Beck is wrong for Liberty University’s commencement. His first paragraph lays out the crux of the concern.
For those who may not be aware, Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., which has consistently been known for its strong conservative and Christian values as a Baptist school, has invited political talk show host Glenn Beck to give the commencement speech to its graduates this week. On the surface that may not seem alarming to many since he is conservative. But given the fact he is a Mormon there ought to be red flags and sirens going off all across Christian circles.
Were this pastor’s concerns valid? After all, it was a Commencement speech given from a person who basically shares the same politically and socially conservative worldview as his audience. Non-Christians can speak truths in these areas. Can we agree on that? Even James White points this out about non-Christians speaking truth while addressing a different issue after the fact in Can Unbelievers Speak Truth?
Can an atheist speak truth? If he says “2+2=4″ is the statement less true than if a Christian said the same thing?
What is interesting about White’s post is that he is combating claims that information received from a Muslim can be true regardless of its source. In this case, the information from a Muslim is being used to analyze some of Ergun Caner’s teachings on Islam. If it is wrong for White to reference a Muslim to merely fact check, how can it then be acceptable for Liberty to use a Mormon to promote its agenda through a speech? However, fact checking versus partnering with a non-Christian who calls on the name of Jesus and His gospel, as will be shown below, are two very different things. Where is the outrage? But I digress.
Concerning Words
Are the concerns of the pastor quoted above, as well as that of other Christians, valid? On the surface the answer is an easy “yes” since Christians and Mormons don’t mix doctrinally. However, since this situation concerns Liberty University it is probably best to seek their own perspective on these issues.
The Message From the Chancellor states:
Liberty University is the largest and fastest growing Christian Evangelical university in the world. …vision to train young Champions for Christ. … Everything we do is designed to develop Christ-centered men and women with the values, knowledge and skills essential to impact tomorrow’s world.
From the LU Distinctives point 2:
A commitment to training visionary champions for Christ. Chapel and convocation speakers are leaders from the worlds of business, education, athletics, government, many professions and the Gospel ministry. These champions join hands with our faculty and chancellor in challenging Liberty students to become visionaries and to win the world for Christ from their vocational platforms.
And a final example, from their Mission:
To develop Christ-centered men and women with the values, knowledge, and skills essential to impact tomorrow’s world.
Liberty desires to develop Christ-centered graduates that can take the gospel into all walks of life. This is a great biblical, praiseworthy goal. Yet, a Mormon gave the Commencement speech for this year’s graduating class. A Commencement is when the students are conferred their degrees from the school. Although some may say it was only a Commencement speech, it may also be one of the last speeches those graduates hear as they are sent out into the world for Christ.
Did Beck say anything troubling or confusing? Jerry Falwell, Jr. introduced Beck by conferring the honorary doctorate due to Beck’s “tireless efforts to preserve the American ideal.” I would probably agree with this American ideal, yet how does this relate to Liberty’s Christ-centered vision?
Beck begins explaining:
I want you to know that I understand that the invitation to speak today is not meant as an endorsement of my faith. But I also want you to understand, that my agreeing to speak here today is an endorsement of your faith.
This is a very interesting statement. It lays the ground work for Beck to bridge a theological divide. He goes on to say that “we need to find the things that unite us…” He finds these commonalities by using biblical terms.
The Spirit is an amazing tool. Rely on God. Do your own work and ask Him, is this right? He will reveal the truth. … The Lord gave us these rights.
Beck references George Whitefield as an amazing man and explains how he reminds him of Moses. He then explains how he recently went to the Scriptures to read about Moses. While describing how he might have reacted if he were in Moses’ shoes he references himself as God’s child. At one point he exclaims:
Turn to God and live!
After pausing for applause, he goes on to repeat this statement. After challenging the students to make the most of their life he tells of a Scripture passage that changed his life, Ezekiel 33. He explains how the Lord must be our shield. Then come some troubling words.
Root ourself in the gospel. Put our feet in the gospel of peace, but be unmovable. Stand for liberty.
Minutes later Beck starts talking about the importance of the atonement. He states how powerful it is and how it will change your life. He moves back to Moses and his interaction with God repeating the “Look to God and live” line. Beck closes the speech reading a journal entry he wrote to his daughter. This consumes about the last 10 minutes of the speech with references to God and biblical truths.
Beck is entertaining, funny, serious and emotional. His final words are:
I leave these things with you in the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. Amen.
Blurring the Gospel
Intentional or not, this was a masterful move for Beck, a Mormon, to speak to Christians on their turf using biblical language. Beck issued the caveat at the beginning that he knew the Liberty crowd did not accept his faith, yet he went on to speak as if they did accept his faith. Brilliant for Beck, not so much for Liberty. Two different Jesus’ along with two different gospels were portrayed as one. And Christians wonder why the world is confused about the gospel?
The world sees a uniting around conservative “American ideals” couched in biblical language. Ironically, this approach to push for conservative values is similar to liberal Christianity’s push for liberal values through their agendas. There is little difference in blurring the gospel in liberal circles through movements like “social justice” compared to blurring it through various conservative agendas.
This is exactly how the gospel was blurred. Falwell gave Beck a platform based on Beck’s fight for American ideals. Beck went on to talk more about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the atonement, the gospel, etc. than he did about American ideals. He even called people to “turn to God and live.” Which god is Beck calling people to? The god of American idealism? Beck’s god of Mormonism? Beck assumed a common gospel from a common Lord which turns out to be no gospel at all.
It is disappointing the the world’s largest Evangelical Christian university had a Mormon come and speak about the gospel. Are accomplished Christian’s so few that none were available? Does Liberty really believe in the power of the gospel to change and influence lives? Or, is it more important to focus on and unite around social/political issues? Change laws, change lives? Change values, change lives? What happens if American society today collapses and our freedoms lost? Will the world have no hope until the freedoms are restored? Or will the gospel flourish under persecution as it did in times past and in other parts of the world today?
Liberty should have called Glenn Beck to repent and believe the good news rather than to represent and retrieve his views. Christians must regain the trust in the power of the gospel, not in its assumption. No matter the social/political circumstances the gospel of Jesus Christ provides the greatest hope of all.
Brief Comparison between Mormonism and Christianity
|
Mormonism |
Christianity |
|
God |
God |
|
Trinity |
Trinity |
|
Jesus |
Jesus |
|
Holy Spirit |
Holy Spirit |
|
Salvation |
Salvation |
(Glenn Beck photo credit: Gage Skidmore)
{ 139 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
I have been reading the posts above as I am subscribed to this thread. A few comments….
First, it is clear that the debate is going nowhere because you are in disagreement about general terms like “scientific”, bias, “know”, and many others that are common English words.
Second, I am struck by the pejorative and accusatory tone coming primarily from the Christian side of this discussion. It seems to me that you ought to be able to discuss this idea in a civil manner. Quinlan has been civil, in my opinion, but even if he wasn’t, shouldn’t you be? One of the primary messages of Christianity is love. It would be great if everybody practiced it.
Third, you Christians seem to be arguing from the position that you have a corner on moral values. That’s a bit presumptive, don’t you think? Considering that there are 32,000 different Christian denominations with moral interpretations all over the map, how can you argue that you somehow are just right about moral issues because you KNOW you are right because you KNOW the UNKNOWABLE?
Fourth, Quinlan believes that his comments are now being moderated. If that’s so, why? For expressing ideas that you find uncomfortable? That’s not a very good commentary about the strength of your convictions.
I said from the outset that I wasn’t here to try to change anyone’s religious beliefs. Quinlan and I are both atheists, and he is willing to defend and debate his point of view on this subject. As I may have stated previously, we don’t agree on everything. My interest in religion only goes as far as it affects politics and public policy. I see that this thread has skirted around that issue now and then but I would be more prone to join in if you were talking about one issue in depth.
I find it very weird to be an atheist chiding Christians about civility on their own board. I’m sorry if this offends anyone but I am telling you the truth as I understand it.
Peace,
Wexler
Wexler,
Quinlan’s comments are not being moderated and none have been captured by the filter. As you mention “pejorative and accusatory” just remember that in Quinlan’s first comment here he used the words ‘disgusting’, ‘hypocritical’, ‘ridiculous’ and called the Bible a story-book that is full of lies. I do understand his position, but it was his first comment.
In discussions like this the definition of things like science does come up. Often times “science” is assumed to answer questions, but when one relies upon science to prove science a definition of terms is needed. Or a clarification on how science is used.
Of course, Christians believe they have the corner on moral values. The 32,000 denomination number is incorrect, but that’s another discussion. This does not mean that we agree 100% upon all values. Just as 1,000,000 atheists who must turn to self for their moral basis aren’t going to agree on everything.
The larger picture is that you and Quinlan are here to argue for your moral position which you think is superior to that of the Christians’ here. I would hope anyone arguing for their position in anything believes they are correct or why put an argument forward?
Yes, Mark, but I’m not arguing for atheism.
I am trying to find out what you, as a Christian, think of Beck, a Mormon, not only setting foot on your campus, but stepping up to the podium on Commencement Day.
I agree with Quinlan’s comments about homophobic beliefs. 100%. I think it’s disgusting that we live in a nation that is supposed to be secular yet we have religious organizations hiding behind tax exempt status while working to deny equal rights to every citizen. It is a human right to choose your spouse. That is an undeniable fact, it is your right independent of what anyone else believes about it. It is also a woman’s right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to full term. This has been upheld in the courts and although I do not personally like the idea of abortion, it is the law of the land and I definitely see the woman’s point of view on this. It’s their body. The pregnancy is something they have to deal with, not the church.
I have now wandered into an area which I do not want to go. If you have any comments about Beck, I would love to hear those.
Peace,
Wexler
“It is a human right to choose your spouse.”
Really? From whence did that right spring?
“It’s their body.”
No, it isn’t. That’s the point. They’re not destroying their own body, but the other distinct person’s inside them.
“If you have any comments about Beck, I would love to hear those.” Well, I’m not Mark, but for what it’s worth, I think it was unwise to have him speak. I would guess that popularity and morality trumped theology and truth in this case. Sadly it doesn’t much alarm me though, given the university’s and much of the SBC’s sloppy doctrine.
Thanks for your time.
Hi, Darrin,
The human right to choose your spouse is one of those truths we hold to be self-evident. It comes from where all human rights come from; a covenant that we keep with each other as citizens of this nation.
Well, I don’t think we’re going to agree about abortion so let’s not go there. Sorry I brought it up.
Thanks for your comment about Glenn speaking at Liberty. Can you amplify a bit on the “morality” part of what trumped theology and truth?
Best regards, and
Peace,
Wexler
My apologies to Quinlan. I found two comments in the pending folder. I was checking the spam folder. I so rarely get real comments that are captured I overlooked it. Just note that it was not my doing, but the automated filters. There was probably a word it did not like.
“Well, that’s just ignorance. The entire point of the scientific method is to use fact and supportable theory to make assertions. Facts being used to prove or support facts, that’s the very core of science.”
The Scientific method does not account for the “fact” of the uniformity of nature, in fact, science doesn’t give justification to the assertion that we come to the truth via science. The anti-theistic scientist must first assume these things, even though they do not accord with his/her worldview. For all experimentation and predication is grounded in the providence of the Triune God as revealed in the Scriptures.
So unless you can give me a reason why your assumptions are not arbitrary then please stop the “Scientific hand waving” you are doing on the board. We’ve all seen it before and it isn’t anything but a smoke screen to cover the cracks in your epistemology
“Right. Atheists believe in talking snakes and people being swallowed by whales (and surviving).”
Atheists also believe in the Uniformity of nature to do science? Why? The Scriptures account for it, do Atheists? nope.
Resequitur,
If you don’t mind, would you please explain a couple of things to me?
First, what is “uniformity of nature” and what does it mean in the context of this discussion? What is a Triune God and how is all experimentation grounded in this Triune God?
I am not sure by what authority you assign all atheists with any particular belief. The way I explain my atheism is that it is a disbelief system, not a belief system. I do not claim to know anything more than anyone else. We all know the same amount. Which is not much.
Thanks in advance, and
Peace,
Wexler
I should tell you that although I am an atheist, I am somewhat versed in Christian theology. I have not heard those phrases used, however.
Wow! I just checked my inbox and there were 38 emails for posts here. There is no way I’ll be able to read and respond so I thought I woud just respond to this quick one I saw.
“Ever heard of the Bill of Rights? That’s what’s known as the state granting us rights. I also don’t care what you think is a dangerous idea. I think religion is a dangerous idea, but I don’t reject it because it still exists.”
Again, I am not certain what political class one sits in to learn this, but this just is not true. The Bill of Rights is to restrict government from infringing on our God-given rights. These rights did not come from the government. They came from God. And the authors of the Bill of Rights did not want a Federal or any government to take away our fundamental rights. Have you read Clarence Thomas’ recent defense of the 2nd Amendment. This is precisely his argument.
There is too much here and I think we have abandoned the original argument. I am being told repeatedly that I am not answering questions, when I have. Yet when I point out the obvious double standard, that seems to be missed.
I will bow out since I easily get lost in such discussions on a Blog.
Thanks JM for the opportunity, and Mr. Wexler, it was indeed a pleasure to speak with you. If you ever wish to email me, I think I might be able to handle that.
God Bless
Howard
In terms of God-given rights, I have to disagree with that vehemently. Since when is the right to bear arms God-given? As far as I’m aware, the idea of God has been around a little bit longer than the idea of firearms. So the idea that God has always given every human the right to bear arms doesn’t make sense. Besides, what about the nations where that’s not a right? Were it God-given, wouldn’t he just step in and smite the people that take it away?
If you’re leaving the thread, I wish you the best. I’m sorry I couldn’t change any of your opinions, but I thank you nonetheless for sticking around to talk to me.
-Quinn
I guess I am on the email list, so there is no stopping. Besides, my wife stepped out, and I have a couple of minutes before I get in trouble.
“Since when is the right to bear arms God-given? As far as I’m aware, the idea of God has been around a little bit longer than the idea of firearms.”
I am really not certain what is so difficult about this. First the right to own property and the right to defend yourself and family and property is fundamental to liberty, which is why they sought to secure these right, not give them (that is the language of the Framers BTW). The Framers knew this all too well. Of course firearms are a modern invention. So what?
“Were it God-given, wouldn’t he just step in and smite the people that take it away?”
This presupposition seems to be a stumbling block for you. I am not a typical evanjellycal and neither is Mark. We are of the Reformed faith (think the Protestant Reformation and or Calvinism). We believe God has ordained evil for His purposes. So all evil events have a purpose by God including the Cross and aare purposely decreed to happen by God. Our theology answers your question on the problem of evil. You’ll probably still disagree with it, but I have found some atheists willing to accept that even though they disagree, they find it more consistent.
I did want to point out an agreement. We both agree with using the term secular for the role of government. Where we disagree is that you take it to a level of meaning the Framers never intended. Secular is not to be equivocated with secularism. That is one of your errors.
For example, I get up and go to work with my fellow non-Christian employees. I find myself using the law of God to govern my way of life while living in my secular vocation. I have even had input into things we do that come from my religious views. Yet I am able to distinguish between the Law of God that is for all men in our secular lives as opposed to commands that are strictly for church and believers.
So in conclusion, I am not against a disciple of Zeus standing in the public square saying that murder is wrong according to Zeus and that we should not do it. For he ought to be able to show how Zeus’ law is for all men, and not just followers of Zeus. This is where the Framers use of Natural Law or as commonly termed, the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God is quite profitable.
This is something that Islam can not do by definition. There is no separation of church and state within Islam because there is no seccular as opposed to holy in Islam. They are a cult run by dictators.
In some sense you find this among Roman Catholic countries as well.
Finally, I must confess that I have no idea how atheists and non-atheists of any brand may get along even in a secular society. Fundamentally, we are going to butt heads at some point. Even though we disagree with some laws, we do agree that murder is wrong. Yet the basis for that is so radically different, it causes discussions like this.
God Bless
There are so many points that the both of us are bringing up, and frankly I wish I had enough time in the day to give all of them the attention they deserve. Sadly I have a lot of things that need doing, so I’m only going to address the things that I feel more strongly about.
We’re not going to be able to agree with a lot of stuff in terms of the founders. They weren’t as explicit as we would have liked them to have been. I’m glad that you’ll at least say that this isn’t a Christian nation, it’s an inconvenient fact that too many people want to deny.
God- wouldn’t an omnipotent god not have non-evil ways of doing the stuff he wanted to do? I’ve always said, if there is an omnipotent, omniscient god, we don’t need to be loving him, we need to be hating him. Here’s a biblical example: The Bible says that god took the rib of Adam, and whittled it into Eve. Now, couldn’t an omnipotent god just have snapped his fingers and made a woman, rather than ripping out the guy’s rib? That sounds pretty messed up to me. God allows (speaking theoretically here) so many people to be so unhappy. He lets people be miserable enough to kill themselves, and then supposedly sends them into infinite, eternal suffering once they do. Is that the mark of a god worth loving and respecting?
In terms of atheist respect, secular humanists (most atheists are) have a much easier time getting along and respecting each other, because they have no religion that tells them to hate each other. No beliefs involving female inferiority, homophobia, or racism.
Now you say you have nothing against a disciple of Zeus saying that murder is wrong based on his beliefs. But here’s my question – what if, according to the religion, that disciple actually believed that murder was morally right, and preached that? Would you have a problem with that?
Eugenics much?
Not sure what you mean by that. Eugenics, as I understand it, is the idea of selective breeding to “improve” the race. So how does that apply to this?
“God- wouldn’t an omnipotent god not have non-evil ways of doing the stuff he wanted to do? I’ve always said, if there is an omnipotent, omniscient god, we don’t need to be loving him,we need to be hating him”
You need to recognize the Creator-creature distinction, you are trying to judge the Righteous, Just, Perfect, Triune God.
“Here’s a biblical example: The Bible says that god took the rib of Adam, and whittled it into Eve. Now, couldn’t an omnipotent god just have snapped his fingers and made a woman, rather than ripping out the guy’s rib? That sounds pretty messed up to me.”
Why is it messed up that God personally deals with His creation?
“God allows (speaking theoretically here) so many people to be so unhappy. He lets people be miserable enough to kill themselves, and then supposedly sends them into infinite, eternal suffering once they do. Is that the mark of a god worth loving and respecting? ”
Well first of all, as I’ve said before, the sinful man shouldn’t even be judging the the Judge of the Universe, it would be like a perp who just committed murder who is telling the judge who gives him the death sentence “This is unjust!”. But to answer your emotional objections, we’ve caused our own misery when we departed from our Sovereign in the garden. Man traded God’s truth, for the opposer’s (satan’s) lie. And sinned against Him. A Righteous Judge (who must keep the righteous order in the universe) simply cannot let sin go unpunished. So what you see is man getting what he asked for. Being that He hasn’t obliterated the human race, but sent His Son to ransom the church from judgment, then He is full of mercy, patience, kindness and Grace. He is worthy of worship whether you think so or not.
and you still have yet to answer my questions.
You’re spouting scripture at me, something I and a whole lot of others see as fiction. I don’t respond to that. How would you feel if I started inserting a chapter of Harry Potter in with every post?
“Why is it messed up that God personally deals with his creation?”
If I ever had a son, that would be my creation, right? Does that give me the right to rip out his rib?
And you see, God is still the guilty and unjust party (theoretically) because he hasn’t given the people that he’s condemning enough opportunity to believe in him. Why does he allow so much evidence to pile up against him? He, as an omnipotent being, has the ability to destroy all of these “lies”.
Please re-state all of your questions so I can answer them together. Thanks.
Quinlan, it seems that God has given people enough opportunity to believe in Him as evidenced by the Christians commenting here, for example.
See, I disagree with that. I have my own theories, many of which are shared by other atheists, as to why people so readily accept God as reality.
1. Indoctrination. Many people are raised by their parents to believe in God. Children listen to their parents, whether or not what they are saying is true or sensible. A lot of people just take their parents’ opinions about God (among other things), and use them rather than really thinking about their own ideas.
2. Fear of death. Many people don’t want to just die and disappear, as a lot of atheists believe. So they like this idea of a heaven, where you can go if you believe in God. I’ve even heard people say that they’re only religious for this reason.
3. Sadness at the death of others. Many people don’t want to believe that their loved one is simply gone forever. They want to think that in a few short years, they will too die and then be reunited with their dead relative.
4. To fit in. So many people see atheists being shunned, and want to fit into the crowd. So again, a lot of people just do the whole God thing because of one perk.
So really, it’s not that God can’t give evidence for his existence, because he’s omnipotent (in theory) and can do anything. It’s people not being able to support their idea of God.
What if I told you that there was a celestial teapot, orbiting the Earth? What if I told you that this teapot is so small, that we can’t prove it because our instruments aren’t strong enough? Well, I should rightly be thought mad. But if this teapot were the focus of an old storybook and was taught as fact every Sunday, then we would see a very different outlook on my little teapot.
By the way – by your own logic, there’s enough evidence not to believe in God, as evidenced by Mr. Wexler and myself.
\”You’re spouting scripture at me, something I and a whole lot of others see as fiction. I don’t respond to that. How would you feel if I started inserting a chapter of Harry Potter in with every post?\”
uh, how in the world do you expect to critique something you have no idea about.
\”If I ever had a son, that would be my creation, right? Does that give me the right to rip out his rib?\”
If it were your creation, sure. God has plenty right to rip out your rib as He created you.
\”And you see, God is still the guilty and unjust party (theoretically) because he hasn’t given the people that he’s condemning enough opportunity to believe in him. Why does he allow so much evidence to pile up against him? He, as an omnipotent being, has the ability to destroy all of these “lies”.\”
You just don\’t read my arguments do you? Either that or you don\’t follow them. Man *does* know God per Romans 1:18-20. He has revealed Himself to man per creation, The Scriptures, and ultimately His Son. To simply say \”the evidence is against Him\” is simply affirming that you are either 1) Self deceived or 2) Lying.
You have yet to answer my objections to your assumptions, yet I answer your questions and you call it \”Harry Potter Fiction\” I am answering in terms of \”My Worldview\”. Which is the only worldview that predication and experimentation can be made. Any predication you do presupposes the Triune God. So of course you know Him. You need Him to exist to deny Him.
\\\\\\\”You’re spouting scripture at me, something I and a whole lot of others see as fiction. I don’t respond to that. How would you feel if I started inserting a chapter of Harry Potter in with every post?\\\\\\\”
uh, how in the world do you expect to critique something you have no idea about.
\\\\\\\”If I ever had a son, that would be my creation, right? Does that give me the right to rip out his rib?\\\\\\\”
If it were your creation, sure. God has plenty right to rip out your rib as He created you.
\\\\\\\”And you see, God is still the guilty and unjust party (theoretically) because he hasn’t given the people that he’s condemning enough opportunity to believe in him. Why does he allow so much evidence to pile up against him? He, as an omnipotent being, has the ability to destroy all of these “lies”.\\\\\\\”
You just don\\\\\\\’t read my arguments do you? Either that or you don\\\\\\\’t follow them. Man *does* know God per Romans 1:18-20. He has revealed Himself to man per creation, The Scriptures, and ultimately His Son. To simply say “the evidence is against Him\\\\\\\” is simply affirming that you are either 1) Self deceived or 2) Lying.
You have yet to answer my objections to your assumptions, yet I answer your questions and you call it \\\\\\\”Harry Potter Fiction\\\\\\\” I am answering in terms of \\\\\\\”My Worldview\\\\\\\”. Which is the only worldview that predication and experimentation can be made. Any predication you do presupposes the Triune God. So of course you know Him. You need Him to exist to deny Him.
Okay, before I move on to other points, let me get this one thing straight: If I had a son, you think it would be my right to kill him?
“Okay, before I move on to other points, let me get this one thing straight: If I had a son, you think it would be my right to kill him?”
according to my worldview, taking the life of another is wrong for us to do. God is the judge and in our rebelling against Him, we are worthy of death.
Why would murder be wrong according to your worldview?
I’ll answer your questions, once I’m satisfied with my understanding of your opinion about this.
So you think I shouldn’t kill my son, but I would have the right to do him permanent bodily harm without causing his death? Of course under my definition circumcision would fit, but that’s another issue, I mean some other kind of permanent disfigurement.
I had a very busy day today and it looks like y’all did, too.
I am very tired at the moment but I just read through all the posts in my inbox and something jumped out at me.
Somebody posted that it was a man’s right to have a gun and defend his family, in defense of gun rights. Someone said that the Bill of Rights were to prevent the state from infringing on those specific rights.
Why, then, did somebody argue previously that the right to choose your spouse is not a human right? Or, on the other hand, if the state makes a law protecting it, it becomes a protected right doesn’t it? Isn’t that the exact same thing as what has happened with LGBT marriage laws? The state has ruled that it does not have the authority to take this right away from people who want to practice it.
Good evening to all.
Wexler
Wexler,
I just saw your question about what I said about morality. Now I can’t say that the following entirely applies to what LU did having Beck, but I would say it’s something that does go on. Often as believers (I understand you’re not, and frankly some of these are “family” (i.e. Christ’s church) issues, so we Christians should be discerning in what we openly discuss, advice which I sometimes fail to follow), we become very passionate about political and moral issues affecting the nation, and I’m not faulting that. However, it is easy in so doing to lose the primary focus which believers should have, trusting in God’s providence, looking toward eternity, relating with Christ, and resting in His sovereignty, truth and grace. So sometimes I think we may find a prominent advocate for morality and sponsor him, even though his views about Christ are way off the mark from historic Christianity. I think that is a mistake, because theological doctrine must be the foundation for all else, and is more important than our stance on particular issues.
On the marriage thing, I’ll just say that I don’t believe we have inherent rights, but rather that, since we were made by a Creator, any rights we have came from Him as well. Thus the rights would always be in accord with His decrees.
← Previous Comments
{ 5 trackbacks }